Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK
Do you wish to request the book?
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK
2019
Overview
ObjectiveTo identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) when patients activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway.DesignEconomic decision models for two patient subgroups populated from secondary sources, each with a 1 year time horizon from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK.SettingUsual care (with or without CMR) in the NHS.ParticipantsPatients who activated the PPCI pathway, and for Model 1: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and PPCI, and were found to have multivessel coronary artery disease. For Model 2: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and were found to have unobstructed coronary arteries.InterventionsModel 1 (multivessel disease) compared two different ischaemia testing methods, CMR or fractional flow reserve (FFR), versus stress echocardiography. Model 2 (unobstructed arteries) compared CMR with standard echocardiography versus standard echocardiography alone.Main outcome measuresKey drivers of cost-effectiveness for CMR, incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsIn both models, the incremental costs and QALYs between CMR (or FFR, Model 1) versus no CMR (stress echocardiography, Model 1 and standard echocardiography, Model 2) were small (CMR: −£64 (95% CI −£232 to £187)/FFR: £360 (95% CI −£116 to £844) and CMR/FFR: 0.0012 QALYs (95% CI −0.0076 to 0.0093)) and (£98 (95% CI −£199 to £488) and 0.0005 QALYs (95% CI −0.0050 to 0.0077)), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the tests was the key driver of cost-effectiveness for both patient groups.ConclusionsIf CMR were introduced for all subgroups of patients who activate the PPCI pathway, it is likely that diagnostic accuracy would be a key determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to definitively answer whether revascularisation guided by CMR or FFR leads to different clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.
Publisher
British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
Subject
/ Adult
/ Aged
/ cardiovascular magnetic resonance
/ Coronary Angiography - economics
/ Coronary Artery Disease - diagnostic imaging
/ Coronary Artery Disease - economics
/ Echocardiography - economics
/ Emergency Service, Hospital - economics
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Magnetic Resonance Angiography - economics
/ Male
/ NMR
/ Patients
/ Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - economics
/ Stents
